had been ten thousand times more sinful yet without an Ordinance from God death could never have seized upon the world page 101. 102 103. What is all this but a palpable and grosse mistake of the question or as Logicians call it an ignorance of the elench We do confesse as shrist brought life into the world he brought it in by the institution of his Father so when sinne brought death into the world it was by the just appointment of God to punish sinne with death The question that is in debate betwixt us is whether sinne be the 〈◊〉 cause of death as the obedience of Christ active and passive is the meritorious cause of life If you yield this as yield it you must we have as much as we do desire Next you enquire how sinne may be the cause of condemnation supposing that it cannot be the principal cause you demand whether it may be a cause in subordination And here you tell us that sinne will not be found neither seeing such causes are good in their own nature Well then what is the cause you tell us seeing sinne is an invention of man and the Devil a meere accident that cleaveth to the subject man we may call sinne an accidental cause of condemnation seizing upon man found sinful page 105. If this way of reasoning be good why may not I proceed in the like manner Heat is an accident in the subject fire therefore the heat of the fire is a meere accidental cause of the boyling of the water The force of your reason is no better when you say sinne is a meere accident in the subject man therefore it is onely the accidental cause of condemnation If you well observe the expression you shall find it to be very absurd to call sin a meere accidental cause of condemnation Condemnation is alwayes set in relation to the guilt of some sinne that doth deserve it how then can you call sinne an accidental cause of condemnation The Scriptures say that the Lord will render to every one according to his works that they who commit such things are worthy of death And many passages of the like kind What will you say to all this Here you have a pretty shift to help you out Sinne say you puts a man in a sutable disposition and qualification for death page 106. Indeed our Divines when they speak of eternal life that the Lord will render to every man according to his works they take the word worthy onely for a sutable qualification According to that of the Apostle he hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light Col. 1.12 Though this may be affirmed of the Saints that they are made meet for eternal life it were too short and too diminuent an expression to affirme that wicked men onely are made suitable to receive vengeance for then the wicked are no more worthy of eternal death then the Saints are worthy of eternal life ☞ which is plainly to crosse the Apostle the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternal life I cannot then but mention your words with a kind of horrour with which you close the Chapter speaking of the wicked they are say you a sutable matter to receive vengeance as Gods people are sutable to receive all the joyes of eternal life Now the joyes of eternal life are the free-gift of God All qualifications dispositions frames of spirit though never so evangelical in the abundance thereof do not abate the worth of an hair of eternal life to be the free-gift of God For there was not the least desarts in a holy life to the procuring of eternal salvation but onely it was the will of God to make eternal life as a Crown to put upon the head of those men that lived holy here which were fit or sutable for the Crown of honour So men that have lived never so notoriously wicked rebeling and blaspheming against God day after day to their lives end are no otherwise worthy than persons fitted as the true subjects sutable for wrath and God is as simply and intirely the authour of the one as the other And so farre you Now I leave it to all tender consciences to understand and to give sentence We do willingly confesse that we cannot merit any thing by our own works in the way to salvation there being such a disproportion between them and the glory to come But I do detest and abhorre that speech of yours when you say that the greatest sinner who continues so all his life long is no otherwise worthy of death than a person fitted or a subject made sutable for wrath and that God is as much the cause of the damnation of the one as the salvation of the other If this doctrine of yours be sound and Orthodox why may not the wicked in hell cast all upon God as the sole Authour of their misery as well as the Saints in heaven ascribe all to the glory of his free grace I will use your own words though to farre better purpose If a man should study many years for a destroying Principle to dishonour his Creator he could not parallel this which is the sharpest Sword that was ever drawn against the righteousnesse of God I have staid the longer upon this point because you have used so many arguments to prove sin to be no meritorious cause of condemnation I have more carefully endeavoured to vindicate the truth because this is one of the first fundamentals that is put into the heart of the Gentiles They knowing the judgment of God against them which do such things that they are worthy of death not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them Rom. 1.32 That sinne is the meritorious cause of death and that a sinner is worthy of death is graven in the heart of every man alive and God at seasons doth stirre up the confideration of the guilt of sinne in the conscience of the Gentiles to look after pardon and to make their peace with God The first convictions of the Spirit do begin with considerations of the Godhead and the guilt of sinne that so men may be brought to see their misery And yet you teach us here in this Chapter that sinne is not the meritorious cause of condemnation Now we proceed to your next Chapter CHAP. XII What Adam retained of his forfeiture till his death HERE also you teach such things as do little lesse then strike at the foundation You tell us that Adam after the fall for his body had all the parts and lineaments thereof He had his senses and retained his knowledge And further you adde I make no question but God had so ordered the imployments that he had for Adam some of them to be more spiritual than ever he had to do before his fall and then that he should utterly disable him from the performance thereof will never be made good by any man under
second man is the Lord from heaven So though Adam was the first man a living man yet it was not a living soul that proveth that Adam had a quickned Spirit page 12◠But in this you do miserably soobisticate For though the Apostle doth draw a parallel between both the Adams If you do well ponder the Scripture you shall finde that the parallel doth not stand so much between Adam before his fall as between the first Adam the second after the fall 2ly upon good consideration you shall finde that the Apostle in this Scripture doth not speak so much concerning the Spirit of God in the soules of the Saints as concerning the spirituality of their bodies that shall be at the resurrection It is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption it is sown in dishonour it is raised in glory it is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body There is a natural body and there is aspiritual body 1 Cor. 15.43 44. If then you will needs conclude Adam to be a carnal man before his fall because his body was not made a spiritual body by the same reason you must conclude all the Saints that have ever been since the creation of the world to be carnal men and absolutely destitute of the work of the Spirit For the bodies of the Saints are yet carnal and must abide in their incarnality till the resurrection of the dead But whereas you build so strongly upon that expression the first man Adam was made a living soul the last man Adam was made a quickning Spirit verse 45. This doth not prove the first man to have been meerely carnal or absolutely void of the Spirit before his fall For it is not the scope of the Apostle in this Scripture to speak of the excellency of man made after the image of God but onely of the corruptible state of the body as it standeth in immediate relation to that immortal condition which it shall have at the resurrection of the dead And whereas it is said the second man was a quickning Spirit this is meant principally of the divinity of Christ by and thorough which he will raise the dead So then if you will build upon this ground and argue from hence that the first man was a meere carnal man because he was not a quickning Spirit by the same principle you must conclude that all the Saints living are carnal men For of what one of them may it be affirmed that he is a quickning Spirit who by his power and divinity is able to raise the dead But if you will make a right analogy let us compare the things that ought to be compared First let us consider what the first man was before his fall and what the Saints are as renewed by grace Secondly let us compare what the first man might have been if he had eaten of the tree of life and what the Saints shall be at the resurrection of the dead For the first of these if you speak of the Saints as renewed by grace though their bodies be natural they are spiritual in respect of the inward man The same may be said of Adam before his fall though his body was made of the dust yet by grace and special favour he did carry the image of God For the second if you shall affirme that all the bodies of the Saints shall be made immortal and spiritual at the resurrection consider what the body of Adam might have been if he had continued in his obedience and eaten of the tree of life If you would make a right collation between state and stat ethe parallel should runne in these termes But because you stand so strongly upon this expression that the first man is of the earth earthy the second man is the Lord from heaven seeing you will have all this to be applied to Adam before his fall I pray you resolve me this question seeing the Apostle saith as we have born the image of the earthy so shall we bear the image of the heavenly Who are they that bear the image of Adam before his fall I think if you were put to it you could not produce any one instance in all Europe Asia Africa or America that ever stood up after this similitude The scope of the text is onely concerning man after the fall and how the resurrection of the dead doth take away that death which is brought in by the fall In the close of the Chapter you propound this question whether was not Adam to have dyed an eternal death for eating of the forbidden fruit For the clearing of the question let us distinctly set down how the three kinds of death did seize upon Adam and how they come upon all his branches First for spiritual death it is evident that he died this death as soon as he did eat of the forbidden fruit For the temporal death he fell under the reign of it the same day he sinned And for eternal death though according to the truth of the commination Adam and his posterity should have dyed the Lord Christ stepping in did set a stop to the sentence And therefore for the cause of the condemnation of man it is now principally and immediately for the neglect of the grace of God that should lead him to repentance But you adde further I can safely say that if Adam was to have dyed an eternal death and that by the appointment of God then Christ neither would nor could have stept in nay he could not have lifted up his little finger to have helped Adam or his posterity page 125. I answer If God had decreed in his secret purpose that Adam and all his posterity should have dyed the death in such a case Christ neither would nor could have stept in to cross the Decree of God but Sir who is the man that doth maintain that position For my part I take the Decree of God to be one thing and the outward denunciation of judgment to be another For the Decree that cannot be changed but the sentence may recieve alteration according to divers outward circumstances and conditions that may occurre Besides if you should build never so strongly upon the letter of the text we can easily reconcile the truth of the commination in saying that Adam might dy the death the same day he sinned ☞ though the Lord was not pleased presently to inflict death in all its kinds From all which we do conclude if the Lord Christ came to free men from the reign of death Heb. 2.14 15. We may easily gather that Adam brought himself and all his posterity under the dominion of that syrant and so he and all his should have dyed that kind of death if the Lord Christ had not stepped in But you go about to deface this speech in the end of the Chapter for if in case that Christ had not stepped in there had been no recovery this were to exclude all other means and to limit
uncircumcised It is therefore a poor and a weak shift of the Examiners who to illude the force of that Scripture I was conceived in sinne and born in iniquity do not shunne to tell us that Davids father was a pious man in Israel and his mother was a godly Matron and being both of them well grown in grace before they begat this their youngest sonne they were more like to convey grace and holinesse if that be communicable than sinne unto him Be like then these new Divines think the grace of God runnes in a blood at least wise that it is a more probable truth than to beleeve the propagation of the sin of the nature Now you come to open the text and here say you If we had all committed sinne in Adam then of what use were these words by the offence of one I do not finde such a saying parallelled viz that one mans offence can be called all mens act that followed him and that without their knowledge and consent page 131. If in this point you would seriously ponder the Scripture you will have your doubts resolved The words of the Apostle are plain by the disobedience of one many were made sinners How came they to be sinners to have the guilt of sinne imputed and original sinne derived with all the effects and fruits thereof but by the disobedience of one man If that be true which is affirmed by you that one mans disobedience cannot be called all mens act by the strictnesse and rigour of such a position you will take away the very ground and strength of the Apostles argument and destroy the parallel which he doth draw between Adam and Christ The whole tenor of his discourse is turned upon this hing as the disobedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that came after him so the obedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that beleeve in him And whereas you say you cannot finde such a passage as this parallelled in Scripture I would entreat you to consider the temporal judgments of God as they have been poured upon several families The house of Eli were to suffer for many generations when all that came of that linage did not know what Eli did neither did they give consent to the sinnes of Hophni and Phinehas yet for all this it is clear that the sinne did redound to the posterity 1 Sam. 2.32 Now you come to acquaint us with some of your observations and you tell us I have heard say and true it is that what being we had in Adam we had it assoon as himself and so if we had done the same actions he had done nothing before us page 131. In this I do agree with you that it is true that the whole nature of man as it hath in time subsisted in thousands and millions did originally subsist in Adam as in the common root I do agree also that what Adam did as the first publick man he did it in our stead yet if you will go to moments and scruples of time we must say also that in order of existence Adam had a being before us we must say that Adams personal sinne was before the pollution of nature but our nature is first polluted in the corrupted masse before we come to commit sin in person nay before we come personally to exist You have a second answer to the words of the text you say If we had all committed that sinne in Adam that he was called to account for then we should have sinned after the same similitude but we sinned not after the same similitude and so we committed not the same sinne And here also I yield according to the strictnesse of termes that we could not siune after the similitude of Adams transgression for Adam sinned by a deliberate will and by a free choyce so could not we Yet neverthelesse though we could not sinne after the same similitude we might sinne in him as the first publick man For proof of this read but the words of the text Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even ever them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression verse 14. The Apostle speaketh of Infants for two thousand five hundred years from the fall of Adam to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Here I demand how could death reign over the Infants aforesaid No Law was then publickly given upon Mount Sinai and the Infants had no understanding neither could they give any consent of will How then could death justly reign over them seeing they never committed any sinne in their own persons Though they did not yet they sinned in the first man and by the reign of death universally over all men over Infants as well as others the Apostle proveth this assertion How weakly then do the Examiners of the late Confession argue when they say surely If the Apostle had beleeved any such thing as the reigning of death over all men by the first mans sinne he would not have omitted that and onely mentioned from Adam to Moses page 81. Though he doth mention the reign of death from Adam to Moses this doth not imply any thing to the contrary but that death hath reigned ever since The words are plain death hath passed over all men to condemnation But there was lesse reason for it that death should reigne from Adam to Moses when the Law was not publickly delivered especially over Infants that never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression But seeing experience hath plainly shewed in this whole interval of time that death hath reigned over Infants by this medium the Apostle proveth them to have been guilty of sinne How guilty of sinne Not in their own persons for they never committed any but onely in Adam the common root of all mankind And so that universal affirmation is made good by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death hath passed over all men to condemnation The universality of death doth prove the universality of sinne in the first man But you further stand upon a priviledge to interpret the words of the text why in such a case as this say you may not I have the same priviledge to give an exposition of these words in whom all have sinned seeing no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of committing sinne in Adam page 133. For that freedome of expounding one Scripture by the accounts of another ☜ by my consent you shall have it for I think the strongest Demonstration in divine matters is drawn from the harmony of Scripture And upon these grounds we do proceed because the whole Gospel in a manner is concerning the regenerating work of the Spirit Hence we do argue that the nature is defiled And because the promise is to beleevers and their seed in the last dispensation we do hereupon conclude the right to the seal as I have already proved against you in
my Treatise of Infant Baptisme But seeing you are so confident in it that no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of our committing sinne in Adam I pray you deal ingenuously and according to your own principles do you not beleeve that Infants do bear he punishment of Adams sinne How could they justly bear the punishment and be no way guilty of the transgression The scope of the Apostle is plainly to the contrary because death reigneth over all over Infants as well as others from hence he concludeth that in one all have sinned If you do well consider by denying original sinne and by taking away the corruption of nature as derived from the first man you do in effect call in question whether there be any regenerating grace to be had from the second man And so when you tell us that no sound Scripture can be given to prove the certainty of our committing sinne in Adam you do as good as say no sound Scripture can be given to evince the certainty of satisfaction made to the justice of God by the suffering of Christ In this matter the Apostle sheweth that the first man is the figure of him that is to come If that be true then which you and the Examiners teach that the guilt of the first mans sinne doth not redound to his posterity you must say also that the obedience of the second man and the free guilt do not redound to those that appertain to him And this is point blank to go against the scope of Scripture Now let us hear what your interpretation is and what account you do give of the Apostles meaning I will repeat your own expressions more largely that the world may both read and give sentence These are your words I shall take some pains in opening that place 2 Cor. 5.21 He made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne By this meanes we may more fully understand in what sense we were made sinners in Adam and knew no sinne Wherein it will appear that we were as guiltlesse of that act with reference to the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world Therefore take notice that Christ was said to be made sinne for us in no other sense but this viz. He hath laid upon him that punishment which was due for sinne he was wounded for our transgressions he was reckoned amongst transgressors But for any man so to affirme it would be as large an untruth as men and Divels could devise For it is one thing to be made sinne and another thing to act sinne Now Christ was said to be made sinne as one that had taken upon him such losses as did accompany sin So those dammages that were to befall the world for Adams sinne Christ is said to bear them not in their essence or being but in the demerit of them As he was made sinne not knowing a deceiving heart in himself so we were made sinners by Adam who knew no such sinne And many such passages you have to the same purpose page 133 134. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge to what passe you are come And here so farre as you affirme that Christ himself was free from sinne when he did bear the penalties of our sins we do agree with you And we further also assent that all the Children of Adam do bear the punishment of his disobedience But whereas you say that we are onely made sinne in Adam after the same manner as Christ was made sinne for us I do here admire at your boldnesse in many respects First when Christ was made sinne for us by his own voluntary undertaking he was made a surety and a propitiation for to satisfie the justice of God for our sinnes Will you say the like of all the Infants that come of Adam that by the merit of their sufferings they should propitiate his transgression Secondly when Christ was made sinne for us he knew no sinne he never committed sinne he had no natural pollution from the birth Now it is not so with us we bear the guilt of Adams sinne as copartners with him in the common pollution of nature Thirdly when the Apostle saith he made him sinne for us that knew no sinne here you must necessarily understand that he speaks of the peculiar prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ that he did bear the burden of sinne when he knew no sinne in himself Now then if that be true which the Examiners and you do affirme that Infants are free from the natural pollution and you here mainly stand upon it that they onely bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no such sinne I would entreat you to judge in your own conscience whether by such a position of the purity of the natural birth you do not make all Infants equal with Christ and if it be true as you affirme that they bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no sinne why doth the Apostle speak so peculiarly so emphatically so singularly of Christ above all other men that he was made sinne for us when he knew no sinne By this error you do intrench upon the sovereign prerogative of the Lord Jesus and I fear unlesse you and the Examiners repent you may one day dearly answer for it But you have an evasion for say you we are as guiltlesse of that act with reference unto the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world But this restriction as the act committed by us will not mollifie the matter For though the sinne of Adam was not committed by any act or will of ours immediately in our own person ☞ yet it was mediatly committed by the free act of our first parent In this case according to Scripture the will of the first man doth passe for the will of the whole nature and of all that do partake of the nature And this is the meaning of the Apostle by one man sinne-entred into the world By sinne he meaneth original sinne or the sinne of the nature and this saith he entred into the world but how not by the proper private and particular will of every individual man but by the common parent of all mankind And for that expression of yours that we are as guiltlesse of Adams sinne as Christ is guiltlesse of the sinnes of the world I do admire that you did not tremble when you wrote such things as these ☞ For we can plainly prove from the scope of the Scripture that Adam by his disobedience did not only fasten guilt upon his posterity but by that act of his he did taint and defile the whole nature of mankind Will you say the like of Christ that he did not onely bear the guilt of the sinnes of the world but that his nature was also defiled with the lusts of the world This were to use your own language as large an untruth
a sense as he understands it the old Pelagians may make good that position of theirs that original sinne is by imitation they that come after do onely imitate the ensample of him that went before Of the entrance of death by sin he speaketh as followeth Death by sinne that is death which at the first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was with the Scrpent to creep upon his belly and the woman to be subject to her husband Answ In these words of his he doth distinguish between death as a meere condition of nature and death as a punishment The former he will have to be in the state of innocency latter only to be introduced by the fall But against this I have many things to alledge First if Adam should have dyed in innocency and that meerely by the condition of his nature what can we possibly make of the sense of that commination in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death what propable interpretation can we give of those Scriptures by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne The wages of sinne is death Rom. 6. Vlt Surely all this plainly sheweth that death came into the world meerely by the sinne of man and if he had not sinned he had not dyed Further the Apostle said the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death 1 Cor. 15.16 The question is when did death begin to be an enemy and from what time are we to fetch the date thereof If Adam should have dyed in innocency than the enmity of death must begin in Paradise we must fetch the date of it from the creation and not from the fall And so consequently death will be rather the work of God than the fruit of sinne But let it be supposed in this low and dimunitive sense that death came into the world as a punishment and began to be penal at the fall onely If we take the matter in this sense it will not serve his turn neither nor will other passages of his doctrine abide the rigour of this interpretation For how often doth he plead after this manner In other cases saith he Lawes be not given to Ideots infants and persons uncapable why should they be given here In all cases of the world it is unjust to lay the sinne of the father upon the children and is it otherwise in this case onely And if the answer may be admitted any man may suffer for the sinne of any father because it may be said here as well as there that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault yet the son is not innocent as being in the fathers loynes when the fault was committed and the Law calls him and makes him guilty Many such Aphorismes he hath where he sheweth or at least endeavours to shew how contrary it is to the justice and mercy of God any way to burthen the posterity of Adam with the guilt of his sinne And yet here he confesses plainly and openly that death quatenus a punishment in the penalty of it came into the world by the disobedience of the first man How he can make one part of his doctrine to agree with the other it passeth all understanding of mine to discerne In his answer to the Bishops letter he seemeth to me to let fall a strange contradiction I have saith he the plain words of Saint Paul death passed upon all men forasmuch as all have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that lived till they could sinne Others that dyed before dyed in their nature not in their sinne neither Adams nor their own save onely that Adam brought it upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrob'd of all that could hinder it Answ let page 49. Here in the former part of his words he saith that infants dye in their nature not in their sinne neither Adams nor their own and yet he tells us again that Adam brought in death upon them and through his disobedience they were disrobed of all that could hinder it If he did bring in death upon them then they did not dye purely in their own nature they must some way die in or by his sinne Again if they dyed purely in their own nature and not at all in his sin how can he be said to bring in death Can he bring in death and can he not bring in death and all this upon one sort of people at one and the same time Neither can I see how he will acquit himself if it should be put upon him to shew the true reason why infants are lyable to burning feavours convulsion fitts and passe through the pangs of death at last Are these the infelicities of nature Then God hath made them in this state and their misery will be purely the work of his own hands Are these the punishment of Adams sinne then the innocent child will bear the burden of his fathers iniquity in such a case where it is not possible for the son to follow the fathers ensample which is plainly to give up the cause Now let us consider what he saith of the quality of the persons upon whom there hath been such a passage of death Death saith he passed upon all men that is upon all the old world who were drowned in the flood of divine vengeance and who did sinne after the similitude of Adam and therefore the Apostle St. Paul addes that for a reason inasmuch as all men have sinned Ans Though the word all in it self hath an ambiguity in it yet the scope of the text the condition of the subject doth plainly demonstrate that the passage of death from Adam as a common root must be absolutely upon all men as men so farre forth as they are his sonnes and not upon all to the flood only But concerning this matter we have his meaning more fully in the next passage If all men saith he have sinned upon their own account as it is certaine they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sonnes and daughters sinned after him and so dyed in their own sinne by a death which at the first and in the whole constitution of affaires is natural and a death which their own sinne deserved but yet was hastned and ascertained upon them for the sin of their Progenitor Answ In these words of his as plausibly as he seems to speak of the cause of death he puts that for the cause which is not the cause and where he speaks of the true cause it doth not answer the sense of the text First he puts that for the cause that is not the cause For from what Scripture or from what consequence of Scripture doth he prove it that Adam and his sonnes in the whole constitution of affiaires should have dyed a death that is natural The Scripture doth every where make death to be the fruit of sinne
as we have formerly proved Againe it is most true that men dye because by their own sinne they deserve death but the scope of the Apostle is here onely concerning the disobedience of the first man and the passage of death upon all by the account of his sinne That which is the principal cause of death at least to the purpose in hand he looks upon it as a businesse by the by In the next words he cometh to deliver himself more clearly for speaking of the fall of Adam he addeth Sin propagated upon that root and vicious ensample or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so Saint Hierom. Answ This passage though it be clothed with the words of Hierom it hath the sense of the Pelagians For observe what he saith sin is propagated from that vicious ensample it doth descend from Adam not so much as a cause but as a beginning and so far as men tread in his steps they are lyable to the same punishment In his answer to the Bishops letter he brings in an ensample to confirme this way of exposition these are his own words To this purpose we have an ensample of Gods transmitting the curse from one to the other Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sinne and made Israel to sinne Joroboam was the roote of the sin and of the curse here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sinne and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as all men of Israel have sinned So far he page 32. By this instance of his it is cleare that Original sin must passe into the world not so much by propagation as by imitation The Kings of Israel did walke in the wayes of Jeroboam that made Israel to sin and thereupon the curse captivity and death came upon all the whole succession and upon all Israel so far forth as they did walk in his waies and did follow his ensample If this be a parallel case we must say sin the guilt of sin and the curse for sin came into the world only by the institution and command of the first man and all his posterity are so far forth involved in his sinne as they walk after such an injunction and imitate that ensample Now if this be so I will leave it to any man to judge whither this gloss will go at last The Apostle saith that the first man is the figure of him that is to come If therefore we are implicated in the sinne of Adam no otherwise but by obeying his command and following his ensample Our salvation by Christ will chiefly consist in our imitating of him and in obedience to his commands As for the merit of his blood the worth of his passion the imputation of his righteousnesse all this must be set apart as a matter of little use and small profit Having done with his own he cometh to paraphrase upon the exposition given by us They think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all have sinned ought to be expounded thus death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinned and God doth truely and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punished and lyable to eternal damnation and all the force of this great fancy relyes upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him Answ We do in substance own the interpretation to be ours but that all the force of it doth depend upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him this we plainly deny Our interpretation is grounded upon the scope of the text For let us suppose the words to be construed in his sence Forasmuch as all have sinned when he hath done all that he can he must come to the interpretation given by us For the drift of the Apostle in the former words is not only to shew that sinne hath past upon all men and death by sin but he speaks of such a passage of sinne and death upon all men out of one man If therefore there be such a general passage of sin and death upon all out of one man then virtually and interpretatively all must sin in one man Againe in the subsequent verses the Apostle saith that the first Adam is the figure of him that is to come If you ask how and wherein we must needs say from the whole series of the text that they are two publick persons and two representatives of the kind By this account then the disobedience of the first man must be virtually the act of all and what he did they did in him and by him So then our interpretation is founded upon the whole scope of the context As for his Critiscismes we will leave them to such who have more leasure to busy themselves about words we will follow him as he goes on in expounding the sense of the Apostle Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that bad not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that is to come By which discourse it appears that St. Paul doth not speak of all mankind as if the evil occasion by Adams sin did discend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reached onely to those that were in the interval between Adam and Moses Answ But if the matter be well considered there is no such collection to be made from the discourse of the Apostle Indeed he speaketh of the reigne of death over those that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses but shall we argue from thence that the evil occasioned by the fall did discend to them onely and go no further This cannot be for afterwards the Apostle drawing a parallel between both Adams hath these words If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many Now then if we shall say by the offence of one many be dead and understand this many or multitude in a limited sence namely of such only that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses by this account such a number alone will stand opposite to the many that have life and grace by Christ Nay that which is more the fore-mentioned number might in their time only look to one man the Lord Jesus for recovery out of sin and death and so the Gospel will be delivered to the consolation of such only that lived in the forementioned
interval between Adam and Moses And so we that live in the latter ages of the world shall have nothing to do with the Gospel nor the Gospel with us But of this I have formerly spoken in my answer to Mr. Everard and the Examiners There I have shewed the reason why the Apostle doth mention the reigne of death in the interval between Adam and Moses He goes on This death saith he was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinned not so capitally as be did Answ This expression death threatned only to Adam hath some ambiguity in it If he speaks of Adam as a particnliar person death was not only threatned to him for in the present case he is to be looked upon as the common roote of the nature when he fell all mankind fell in him from him death passed upon all not only as sinners in their own person but in that formality as made sinners or sinful by his disobedience Of infants it is true as well as others in Adam all dye and so death passeth upon all Next he telleth us what it is to sin like Adam To sin like Adam saith he is used as a tragicall and high expression so it is in the Prophet they like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is they like Adam have transgrest and yet death passed upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam Answ For the text in Hosea our English translation may well passe by an Enallage of the number They like man that is like fickle and inconstant men have transgrest my Covenant Or if this will not satisfie that of Tremellius may obtaine Tanquam hominis transgressi sunt faedus They have played fast and loose with me as if it were no other but a meer Covenant of man But let us take the words in the sence that is most propitious to him viz. that the Prophet here looks to Adam as the head of all Apostates and that the Israelites had sinned in as tragical a manner as Adam did what doth he infer from hence he tells us that death reigned from Adam to Moses over those that had not so tragically sinned as Adam had done Truely the old world that was drowned in the flood Sodom and Gomorrah that were burnt with fire the builders of Babel whose language was confounded these and such like sinners though they lived in the interval between Adam and Moses were none of the least But let us take it in his own sence that death reigned over Abel Seth Noah and others that did not sin so capitally as Adam did If this be well considered it doth make more for our purpose than it doth for his For these holy men that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses were under the reigne of death Here I demand how came they to be under this reigne If he will say their own sinne was the principal cause how will he answer the words of the Apostle who expressely tells us by one mans offence death reigned over all ver 17. Againe if he shall say they came under this power by the sinne of Adam then he makes good the interpretation given by us that by the sinne of Adam infants as well as others in all that interval between Adam and Moses came under the power and sovereignty of death He further addeth God saith he was so exasperated with mankind that being angry would still continue that punishment even to lesse sinnes and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinned not so bad and had not been so severely and expressely threatned had not suffered so severely Answ By the tenour of the Doctrine we may understand that men by their own sins do deserve death as for the sin of Adam by this account it is only an aggravating circumstance and a cause meerly of the severity of the sentence Now if this be so how shall we expound the meaning of the Apostle By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men He speaketh of the entrance of sinne of the entrance of death of the entrance of sin and death upon all by the sin and disobedience of one man Is all this only to make Adams sin a meer accessory or aggravating circumstance away with such a conceit The text doth pitch upon it as the principal and general cause of death Againe the Apostle saith by the offence of one death reigned by one If all men fall under the reigne of death by the offence of one then certainly his offence is not the cause alone why they are more severely dealt with but it is the very cause why they fall under the power and dominion of death it selfe Shall we make a circumstance of that which is the principal cause Further what is the reason that infants dye seeing personally and individually they are guilty of no sin of their own to deserve death in his answer to the Bishops letter he doth not shunne to affirme that death comes upon infants meerly by right of dominion But then saith he the evil of punishment may passe further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of dominion yet by reason of the relation of the offlicted to him that sinned to him it is a punishment But if it passeth upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the descendants or relatives for the others sake his sinne being impured so far and more he hath to the same purpose pag. 43. Here he plainly delivers his opinion that death is inflicted upon others because they do partake with Adam in his sinne but it descends and comes upon infants meerly by way of prerogative and absolute dominion And if their death be a punishment it is so only to Adam in as much as they stand related to him as being his descendants and relatives Against this I have some things to oppose First in his Vnum necessarium pag. 403. He layeth down this as a sure axiom When Godnsing the power and the dominion of a Lord and the severity of a Judge doth punish posterity it must be so long as the Parents may live and see it and so out of Chrysostome he doth expound it to be to the third and fourth generation and no longer Now here I argue if God punisheth Adam in his infant children this is not to the third and fourth but to the hundreth generation Againe why should he be punished in his infant-children when he hath been dead many hundred nay certaine thousand years agoe
But still you take offence at the contrariety of the two wills You say There is an impossibility for Adam to serve two Masters especially when one commands him to stand by a revealed will and the other hath determined the fall by his secret will at the same time unlesse he could serve the one in the forenoon ☞ the other in the afternoon And yet further to amplifie the difficulty you say The secret will is the controuler for let the revealed will command any thing we are to center in the determination of the secret And then you pathetically call upon man to bewail the time that ever be had a being in this world because he is sure to come to ruine which will soever he obeys If Adam did obey the secret will of God then the penalties inflicted by the revealed will would fall upon him And then you conclude in these words Might we not say farewell all hopes of another life and so hang down our heads crying out alasse we are undone our Leaders are not agreed for what the one sayes do the other determines that he shall not do And much more you have to the same effect page 80. But all may be answered in a few words We plainly affirme in matters of obedience men have nothing to do with the secret will of God according to that determination Secret things belong to God but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever that we may do the words of this Law Deut. 29.29 This also is the doctrine of the Church of England That men should not meddle with predestination and election but those only who have the fruits of election who are called justified and sanctified For the ordinary sort of men they only are to look at the general threats that they may be humbled and to the general promises that you may beleeve Artic 17. And so in the particular case of Adam we say that he had nothing to do with the secret will of God concerning the permission of the fall his duty only was to look to the command That was the Cynosure or only rule which he was to be guided by And it is the duty of us all to do that which the Lord commandeth and to rest upon him to make our Leaders to agree It doth not appertain to you nor me nor any man living to make a reconciliation betwixt these two wills in their seeming differences let us keep the ordinary path But if you will say that the secret will is that which doth prevail though this doth prove true in the event yet neverthelesse the revealed will of God is the onely rule or cannon which we must walk by as for example the Lord in his revealed will required Abraham to offer up his son Isaac in sacrifice when in his secret will he had decreed that Isaac should not be sacrificed If we go to the event the secret will was the more preponderating and prevailing will of the twain Though it was yet the obedience of Abraham had its special testimony in this that he had regard to the revealed will of God Gen. 22.2 12. So in the case of Hezekiah the Prophet was sent with a message to him set thy house in order for thou shalt dye and not live Isa 38.2 and yet we finde that the Lord in his secret will had decreed that he should not dy at that time fifteen years more were added to the dayes of his life In the present case then though the secret will did carry the sway yet the commendation of the obedience of Hezekiah did ly in giving assent to the threatning of God denounced by the mouth of the Prophet Though the denunciation was meerely conditional spoken onely in relation to second causes thou shalt dye of the present disease unlesse thou humble thy self and by fervent prayer seek the face of God Though this declaration of the will of God did imply a condition yet because it was the will declared and outwardly revealed to Hezekiah he was to have respect to this onely He was not whatsoever you suggest to the contrary at a dilemma or strait which of these two wills ought to be obeyed he never lamented the day of his birth because his Leaders were not agreed He never faulted the contrariety of the two wills that the revealed will should say thou shalt dy and the secret will imply thou shalt live What God had revealed concerning his present death he did beleeve the sentence outwardly made known to him as for Gods secret Decree he had nothing to do with that which did meerely lie hid in God We read indeed after his humiliation when the Lord had made known so much of his secret purpose that he would adde fifteen yeares more to the dayes of his life then he was bound to believe and to live in faith of that particular promise which was made I might go further with the example of the Ninevites the Lords revealed will or his sentence outwardly denounced was Yet fourty dayes and Nineve shall be destroyed Jonah 3.4 Now in his secret will or absolute Decree the Lord had not purposed that Nineveh should be destroyed but that that people should escape by true repentance at that time Though the secret will did prevaile or to use your language was the will that did controll yet for the time being the Ninevites had nothing to do with the will of Decree no further then this Who can tell whether the Lord will return from his fierce anger verse 9. The will which they were immediately to believe was the sentence denounced by the mouth of the Prophet they were bound to believe that their sinnes were so great that they did deserve destruction and that the Lord would certainly destroy them within the space of fourty dayes unlesse they did repent in that limited time Their beleeving the revealed will of God and their trembling at his Word was one principal mean to bring about his secret will and what he had decreed in his secret will concerning their preservation And though the denunciation by the Ministery of Jonah came not to passe it was no false message because it was reversible upon a tacite condition which the Lord was pleased for a season to conceal from the Ninevites to drive them more effectually out of their carnal security I might adde more examples to prove the vanity of your exceptions but I will go neerer the matter and that in a harder case then any propounded by you We read touching the wast of the Church in the latter times The outward Court cast it out and measure it not for it shall be given to the Gentiles and the holy City shall they tread under foot fourty and two moneths Rev. 11.2 Here it is plain that the Lord speaketh concerning the desolation of the Church that shall be in all Anti-Christian times Now seeing the Lord hath revealed these things to his people to the end that
founded upon expresse Apostolical practise and implicite Apostolical precept which we are sufficiently able to prove and evince by the collation of foure Scriptures if we were put upon that argument But this would be too larg a digression from the matter in hand Next you come to shew the sense of the commination And here you tell us that Adam did not dye the same day if the day be taken for the space of twelve or twenty four houres This is in plain termes to contradict the scope and sense of the text For there it is expressely said in the very same moment and instant of time in which our first parents did eat the forbidden fruit their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked Gen. 3.7 If you take this for the eyes of their mind it is most clear that their eyes were opened not onely to see their inward nakednesse in the losse of the image of God but also to feel the guilt of sinne as the just fruit of their disobedience If the opening of the eyes be taken for the eyes of the body then their eyes were opened to see that which they did not nor could see before Their nakednesse before was a nakednesse of honour innocency and righteousnesse but their nakednesse after was a nakednesse of dishonour of misery of sinne of provocation to sin And for the particular time it is expressed in the Comination in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death And accordingly in the same instant of time when they had eaten the forbidden fruit the eys of them both were opened they knew that they were naked Therefore death misery did seize upon them the same day according to the Commination But because you are so peremptory in it that Adam did not dye the same day if the day be taken for an ordinary day of twelve houres long For the clearing of this I would intreat you to answer me this question why did God appear to Adam in the evening in the cool of the day If you shall say it was to call the man and his wife to account for their disobedience I grant this to be true but it doth not satisfie the question for the particular time He might have called him to account at any other time and what necessity was there that it should be left upon record that he came to judgment the very same day The Lord had said in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death and the same day that the forbidden fruit was eaten at evening in the cool or wind of the day as the Hebrew hath it the Lord came to inquire after the fact to give sentence and to execute judgment In Scripture where promises or threats are declared to be fulfilled in such a particular time there the Holy Ghost is punctuall in the observation of the time The children of Israel should be in bondage soure hundred years according to the promise Gen 15.13 14. And when that time was fulfilled the very same day they came out of the land of Egypt with their Armies Exod. 12. 41 42. So our Lord and Saviour did signifie to his Disciples that he should be crucified and slain and the third day rise again Mat. 16.24 And how careful are all the Evangelists to repeat the time of the resurrection that it was on the first day of the week the third day after his passion And so in the present case when it is said in the day that thou eatest thereof shalt thou dye the death to the fulfilling of this the eyes of our first parents were opened the very first day And the Lord came to execute judgment upon them for their disobedience the evening of the same day After all this let us now hear what exposition you do give of the text Though Adam say you did not dye the same day as he did eat of the forbidden fruit yet he forfeited his life to the Lord of the great Charter of the world he was then in a capacity to dye he did then fall under the expectation of death As in the English such a man is a dead man because he is condemned by the sentence of the Law That which you say is true and it is in effect that which I teach but according to your sense it is not the whole truth For when the Lord saith in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death he doth not speak this onely of a capacity of dying but of an actual seizing of death for he was struck with spiritual death the very same day he sinned And for a temporal death likewise though there was not a present dissolution of the soul from the body yet presently he fell under the curse to conflict with Armies of diseases which should never leave him till they had brought him to his grave In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread untill thou return unto the ground for out of it was thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return Chap. 3. ver 19. But now you further adde If Adam had dyed the same day he could not have tilled the ground he could not have lived so long as to see a son of his own To all this I agree if you take death in the most strict sense for the actual dissolution of the soul from the body but what ground have we so to limit the words of the text I have said before that God did smite him the same day with spiritual death and for a temporal death he came under the dominion and reign of it In that famous place when the Apostle saith by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death hath passed over all men to condemnation Rom. 5.12 He doth here speak of the immediate reign of death Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression ver 14. And in the close of all as sinne hath reigned to death so might grace reign thorough righteousnesseunto eternal life v. 21. Therfore the same day that Adam sinned though he lived to till the ground and to beget children after his own image yet he and all his fell immediately under the reign of death so that all who are now born into the world infants as well as others are under the reigne of death by the disobedience of the first man Having given the true sense of the Scripture we will take a view of your interpretation And here you say ☞ that Adam did dye the same day though he lived nine hundred thirty nine yeares after And to make good this strange glosse of yours you tell us that God did not prescribe any quantity of houres but hath declared that a thousand yeares are as one day in his account page 118. I must indeed acknowledge that a day is taken sometimes for a year sometimes for a greater revolution of time as may be seen
man onely this is sufficient that the first man is the root of all his branches and all that come of him were made sinners by him and the second man is the root of all his branches and all that are ingraffed into him are made righteous by him Secondly some of them that stand for the universal redemption do not plead an absolute or universal justification of all men by the obedience of the first man but onely plead for a general impretation or possibility of salvation which then onely comes to be applied when men believe and receive the promise by a lively faith Thus we have passed through all the arguments of the Examiners and we have seen their cavils against the several Scriptures alledged by us As for those similitudes of punishing the posterity of Traitors for the treason of their parents and the killing of the young vipers with the old by reason of their poysonous nature c. forasmuch as these are onely illustrations of the truth so all the pains which they take here is onely to cavil at illustrations Other passages they have of lesser moment which we have answered before onely they have one argument in the Chapter of free will from that place Isaiah 7.14 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chuse the good the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings Here they would have us observe two points First that though this place be commonly understood of our Saviour yet it is meant of the common state of man Secondly this child from his infancy according to the common state of mankinde should have the knowledge and ability to refuse the evil and choose the good From hence they do inferre that a natural man can both will and act according to his first integrity untill he disables and corrupts himselfe Further they stand upon it that a man hath a power to choose the good and to that purpose they cite the words of Moses Deuteronomie 30.19 I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing therefore choose life page 126 127 128. If they did well understand the meaning of these Scriptures they would not pervert them to so strange a sense For the Text in Isaiah we do acknowledge that the children in an ordinary way have a power to choose the good and to refuse the evil when they come to yeares of discretion But what kinde of good is here meant not that good which is spiritual or divine for this they cannot chuse without an inward work of the Spirit but that good onely which is moral and civil and this at yeares of discretion men are able to make choyce of And for the words of Moses I have set before you blessing and cursing therefore choose life c. To the clearing of this Let us distinguish First what he speaks of and Secondly the persons to whom he speaks First if by choosing the good be meant the true God in opposition to all the Heathen gods of the Gentiles here Moses speaks to the Israelites as to a people that had cleare evidences and convictions that there was no other God in all the world but theirs onely And therefore he doth exhort them to chuse the true God for their God Secondly if by choosing the good be meant the loving of the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soule as it is implyed verse 10. then this word of command is given onely in relation to the word of promise verse 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live In immediate relation to this promise Moses saith I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God to walk in his wayes and to keep his commandments that thou mayest live verse 16. So then we do conclude that the ability to choose the good is not from any natural power but from the grace of God and the word of promise Thus I have gone thorough all the reasons which are alledged either by Mr. Everard or the Examiners the late Patrones of the purity of natural birth If they have any thing more to say for this my desire is that they would shew their strength or else confesse their wicked errors and submit to the clear evidence of truth Now let us consider the several and respective arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor and what hath been lately said by him concerning the same subject The third Book containeth the Answer to several Arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Vnum Necessarium and two smaller Treatises of his Forasmuch as this Learned man doth tread in the footsteps of our Antagonists and doth plead the same things against the Doctrine of original sinne as they have pleaded against us for certain years last past And seeing also that many are like to be taken with the purity and elegancy of his Style that probably are not able to judge of the foulenesse and impurity of his Doctrine We have thought it worth our labour to provide an antidote to secure the soules of men and if it may be possible in a peaceable and brotherly manner to reduce him from the evil of his opinions And so we come to the several Sections of the sixth Chapter in the treatise aforesaid SECT 1. Of Concupiscence and original sinne and whither or no and how far we are bound to repent of it ORIGINal sinne is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sinne of Adam which was committed in the original of mankind by our first parent Answ We deny not but the sinne of Adam may be called the original or the first sinne because it was the first that was committed But then we must take heed that with our Authour we do not deny also the pollution and the corruption of the natural birth In so doing we must needs destroy regeneration or the new birth we must needs also evacuate the Baptisme of the Spirit so farre as it doth seal regeneration humiliation for the birth sinne will be a meere non ens and the mortification of the sinne of the nature will be a nullity In a word one of the chief ends of the Christian faith which is to put on the Christ-like disposition will be frustrated and greatly impaired For what need I to put on the new disposition as it is from Christ the root of all grace and spiritual life if there be no pravity and sinfulnesse of nature from Adam the root of corruption In Scripture the one is set forth as the immediate opposite to the other But he further sheweth This sinne brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more a certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality Answ Besides the affections of mortality and the certainty of dying this sinne also brought upon Adam the depravation of original righteousnesse